August 20, 2010
Redirect
As I have clearly not maintained this mirror site - and realistically won't - please redirect here.
July 9, 2010
Story: Uxory and Society
(Note: there are many posts absent from this miror blog site, these posts can be found here.)
But you were too tired to rub my back last night - it would have just been doting laced with complaint, which you know I can't stand.
~My Wife
Mostly this blog is about interior experience and intimate relationships and as a rule I do not comment here about society as a whole or even very much in part. Today I have something different, though not too different since my purpose in opining a little on society is to ultimately inform a fairly new symbol (my symbol) to this outlet, that of 'a good story'. To do this I begin in a well explicated spot for I've been talking endlessly about the inadequacy of some typically used symbols to describe the great thing my wife and I have. And while I do believe I have finally figured I may not need more adequacy (right now) than "Doting is to Octopus Heart and the Love-of-his-life", the point of this assay is not to differentially search for such a label again, but rather to trace a path untraced here before, or at least the first part of that path, about passion, society and towards 'a good story'.
I've already talked a great deal about passion; I am in fact an advocate for passion and am 'passion positive' because passion is where we get meaning and motivation, piece by piece. I firmly believe passion is a good thing:
Yet there are also 'passion negative' things - such as the definition of uxorious:
Excessive, not 'more than normal' or 'above average', but 'excessive'. Implied is fondness beyond standard, necessary, or prudent passes into the realm of 'submissive', and 'submissive' (for a man) is 'excessive'. This is one of the nicer standard definitions; other definitions are clearer about submissiveness. (I won’t even get into the obvious misogynistic nature of a society and language where there isn't an opposite of uxorious, a woman who loves her husband greatly, because no one thought to label "the ordinary way things ought to be". Indeed the only word that comes close is 'wifely'.) Some of those definitions with less than pleasant connotations:
Ignoring the obvious stereotype violation that a woman's supposed to be dependent on her man, not vice versa, (a stereotype finally seeing its comeuppance incidentally), together these definitions seem to say 'greatly loving' someone is 'excessive', is too 'irrational', and that 'greatly loving' someone means the same thing as to "yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of" the one you love.
And while I ultimately disagree with the connotation here, I readily admit that in a very real sense it is true; any time anyone loves or cares for another, they are possibility subjecting themselves to the vicissitudes of rejection, spurning and loss. What if your beloved bikes in front of truck? Or witness Romeo and Juliet, the infamous cautionary tale of impassioned 'star-crossed lovers', who each kill themselves at the thought that their beloved is already dead. Their sheer grief of love's loss, the overwhelming pain of beloved's absence, seem to say they were truly destined for tragedy because they loved so greatly and so passionately and shouldn't have; and the story merely came to an end deserved for the foolishness of excessive fondness.
Yet I say no, tragedy is not the height of passion's embrace, but rather fear is the depth of tragedy's embrace. We fear of falling out of love, our partner falling out of love, perhaps not divorce so much anymore but we certainly fear the 'I told you so's' and the 'sour grapes' of buyer's remorse over a passion that for whatever reason didn't last, and that now we therefore must believe couldn't have lasted because it couldn’t have been true.
~
Which brings me to my minor point about postmodern society: we may put the skeptical, cynical, knowledgeable face on postmodern dispassion and disinterest, but (as I can’t resist reference to a book I love) I agree with Wendy Steiner's suggestion postmoderns don't enjoy good things 'too much' when they have them because to do implies they have bought the falsity and trickery of mere relative assigned value.Of course, her book Venus in Exile is about twentieth century society's rejection of beauty in art and literature.
Yet in my experience, we are individuals who know beauty –and passion– by direct experience, not by indirect analytic interior construct. Quite aside from the dissonance of having any interior construct deny one's immediate experience, the reversal in relationship between experience and interior construct is at the heart of what is true for any person. For philosophy, 'truth-loving', is having your immediate experience form your interior constructs, and adjusting your interior constructs to adequately express and explain your experience. And if having your interior constructs filter your immediate experience is unavoidable to some degree, intentionally forming one's experiences to fit their interior constructs, intentionally truncating and curtailing experiences to fit, is the Procrustean essence of ideology.
And if we live openly and truthfully to our experiences, including experiences of beauty and passion, yes, we invite the inevitability of 'bad' experiences - such as grief. And I have known grief and the terrible wasting depression that comes with it, and honestly I'm more than sympathetic to it. Yet if in the face of fear I said (uxorious) passion was for those already standing on their own two feet, so also I believe passion is for those able to face their own fear and life's differences and changes with courage and a positive attitude. Living in the openness of reality may be a difficult thing to do because there are realities we don’t want to see, but it does not mean doing so isn't of worth, value or true.
And so despite the word 'uxorious' giving me the impression that in the collective unconscious of contemporary postmodern society to 'greatly love' someone is necessarily synonymous with the irrational stupidity of willfully entering into a bondage of the mind and with a foolish and silly enslavement to passion, what I really sense is the pervasive individual's fear of meaningful immediate experience.
~
The last two definitions of uxorious above are included in Kate Moses' enjoyably literate and intelligent essay about the word. Moses clearly thinks uxory isn’t for everyone, but everyone would agree with her on this point: different people different passions. Yet she also suggests "it may be something wasted on the young" and (if you can) you should "take your uxory where you can find it" (i.e. while you still can) because someday its passion going to end up 'a broken ring in your jewelry box in need of repair'. And this where I part company - with Moses and with society's collective unconscious if I must - because for me this essentially negative attitude towards immediate experience, this skeptical, cynical, postmodern opinion of passion, is not only detrimental to the individual (in dissonance), but is problematic for attaining a balanced mode of meaning that leads to a positive perspective, one oriented on growth, happiness, well being, that is open to experience and treats experiences as real and valid.
When I saw my first definition of uxorious, "foolishly fond", I didn't see it as a bad thing at all (perhaps I couldn't have seen it as a bad thing); I thought it was great that human experience required the English language to have such a word. But now I realize that for the most part other people look somewhat askance on long-term romantic 'passion sensibility' as a rather childish, immature, puppy-love-ish Romanticism, something that is at best 'quaint' or 'old-fashioned' in today's times, despite the fact that many of those same people want more meaning, romance and passion in their lives.
Which brings me to point of communicating such manner of meaningful immediate experience as passion, without falling afoul of prevailing sentiment towards irrationality, without burying the meaningful experiential content in analytic differentiating dissection. Which brings me to the idea of 'a good story' (poetry, movies, television, any format or media) as a 'sideways symbol', as an indirect expression able to sidestep the 'direct' explication of experience through interior or social constructs and communicate with an individual's interior sensorium of immediate experience - and speak its native language.
~
But you were too tired to rub my back last night - it would have just been doting laced with complaint, which you know I can't stand.
~My Wife
Mostly this blog is about interior experience and intimate relationships and as a rule I do not comment here about society as a whole or even very much in part. Today I have something different, though not too different since my purpose in opining a little on society is to ultimately inform a fairly new symbol (my symbol) to this outlet, that of 'a good story'. To do this I begin in a well explicated spot for I've been talking endlessly about the inadequacy of some typically used symbols to describe the great thing my wife and I have. And while I do believe I have finally figured I may not need more adequacy (right now) than "Doting is to Octopus Heart and the Love-of-his-life", the point of this assay is not to differentially search for such a label again, but rather to trace a path untraced here before, or at least the first part of that path, about passion, society and towards 'a good story'.
I've already talked a great deal about passion; I am in fact an advocate for passion and am 'passion positive' because passion is where we get meaning and motivation, piece by piece. I firmly believe passion is a good thing:
Yet there are also 'passion negative' things - such as the definition of uxorious:
- having or showing an excessive or submissive fondness for one's wife
(OxfordDictionaries.com)
Excessive, not 'more than normal' or 'above average', but 'excessive'. Implied is fondness beyond standard, necessary, or prudent passes into the realm of 'submissive', and 'submissive' (for a man) is 'excessive'. This is one of the nicer standard definitions; other definitions are clearer about submissiveness. (I won’t even get into the obvious misogynistic nature of a society and language where there isn't an opposite of uxorious, a woman who loves her husband greatly, because no one thought to label "the ordinary way things ought to be". Indeed the only word that comes close is 'wifely'.) Some of those definitions with less than pleasant connotations:
- excessively attached to or dependent on one's wife
(Collins English Dictionary)
- foolishly fond of or submissive to your wife
(TheFreeDictionary.com)
- greatly or excessively fond of one's wife, doting
(The New Short Oxford English Dictionary)
- dotingly or irrationally fond of or submissive to one's wife
(Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition)
Ignoring the obvious stereotype violation that a woman's supposed to be dependent on her man, not vice versa, (a stereotype finally seeing its comeuppance incidentally), together these definitions seem to say 'greatly loving' someone is 'excessive', is too 'irrational', and that 'greatly loving' someone means the same thing as to "yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of" the one you love.
And while I ultimately disagree with the connotation here, I readily admit that in a very real sense it is true; any time anyone loves or cares for another, they are possibility subjecting themselves to the vicissitudes of rejection, spurning and loss. What if your beloved bikes in front of truck? Or witness Romeo and Juliet, the infamous cautionary tale of impassioned 'star-crossed lovers', who each kill themselves at the thought that their beloved is already dead. Their sheer grief of love's loss, the overwhelming pain of beloved's absence, seem to say they were truly destined for tragedy because they loved so greatly and so passionately and shouldn't have; and the story merely came to an end deserved for the foolishness of excessive fondness.
Yet I say no, tragedy is not the height of passion's embrace, but rather fear is the depth of tragedy's embrace. We fear of falling out of love, our partner falling out of love, perhaps not divorce so much anymore but we certainly fear the 'I told you so's' and the 'sour grapes' of buyer's remorse over a passion that for whatever reason didn't last, and that now we therefore must believe couldn't have lasted because it couldn’t have been true.
~
Which brings me to my minor point about postmodern society: we may put the skeptical, cynical, knowledgeable face on postmodern dispassion and disinterest, but (as I can’t resist reference to a book I love) I agree with Wendy Steiner's suggestion postmoderns don't enjoy good things 'too much' when they have them because to do implies they have bought the falsity and trickery of mere relative assigned value.Of course, her book Venus in Exile is about twentieth century society's rejection of beauty in art and literature.
Yet in my experience, we are individuals who know beauty –and passion– by direct experience, not by indirect analytic interior construct. Quite aside from the dissonance of having any interior construct deny one's immediate experience, the reversal in relationship between experience and interior construct is at the heart of what is true for any person. For philosophy, 'truth-loving', is having your immediate experience form your interior constructs, and adjusting your interior constructs to adequately express and explain your experience. And if having your interior constructs filter your immediate experience is unavoidable to some degree, intentionally forming one's experiences to fit their interior constructs, intentionally truncating and curtailing experiences to fit, is the Procrustean essence of ideology.
And if we live openly and truthfully to our experiences, including experiences of beauty and passion, yes, we invite the inevitability of 'bad' experiences - such as grief. And I have known grief and the terrible wasting depression that comes with it, and honestly I'm more than sympathetic to it. Yet if in the face of fear I said (uxorious) passion was for those already standing on their own two feet, so also I believe passion is for those able to face their own fear and life's differences and changes with courage and a positive attitude. Living in the openness of reality may be a difficult thing to do because there are realities we don’t want to see, but it does not mean doing so isn't of worth, value or true.
And so despite the word 'uxorious' giving me the impression that in the collective unconscious of contemporary postmodern society to 'greatly love' someone is necessarily synonymous with the irrational stupidity of willfully entering into a bondage of the mind and with a foolish and silly enslavement to passion, what I really sense is the pervasive individual's fear of meaningful immediate experience.
~
The last two definitions of uxorious above are included in Kate Moses' enjoyably literate and intelligent essay about the word. Moses clearly thinks uxory isn’t for everyone, but everyone would agree with her on this point: different people different passions. Yet she also suggests "it may be something wasted on the young" and (if you can) you should "take your uxory where you can find it" (i.e. while you still can) because someday its passion going to end up 'a broken ring in your jewelry box in need of repair'. And this where I part company - with Moses and with society's collective unconscious if I must - because for me this essentially negative attitude towards immediate experience, this skeptical, cynical, postmodern opinion of passion, is not only detrimental to the individual (in dissonance), but is problematic for attaining a balanced mode of meaning that leads to a positive perspective, one oriented on growth, happiness, well being, that is open to experience and treats experiences as real and valid.
When I saw my first definition of uxorious, "foolishly fond", I didn't see it as a bad thing at all (perhaps I couldn't have seen it as a bad thing); I thought it was great that human experience required the English language to have such a word. But now I realize that for the most part other people look somewhat askance on long-term romantic 'passion sensibility' as a rather childish, immature, puppy-love-ish Romanticism, something that is at best 'quaint' or 'old-fashioned' in today's times, despite the fact that many of those same people want more meaning, romance and passion in their lives.
Which brings me to point of communicating such manner of meaningful immediate experience as passion, without falling afoul of prevailing sentiment towards irrationality, without burying the meaningful experiential content in analytic differentiating dissection. Which brings me to the idea of 'a good story' (poetry, movies, television, any format or media) as a 'sideways symbol', as an indirect expression able to sidestep the 'direct' explication of experience through interior or social constructs and communicate with an individual's interior sensorium of immediate experience - and speak its native language.
~
N.B. Incidentally, my favorite standard definition of uxorious still does not escape 'unusual' or 'excessive' is "characterized by doting and unusual excessive fondness for and often submission to a wife" and my favorite related nonstandard definition of 'uxory' is (1.) passionate attachment to a spouse (2.) perfect blend of love and lust.
June 6, 2010
Darkness: Perpetually Dissatisfied
(Note: there are about 30 posts absent from this miror blog site, these posts can be found here.)
I have been talking about how motivation as a matter of value and worth, how desire and passion as a matter of 'individual will', are indicative of our common and individual humanity at some essential and meaningful level so that I may ultimately shed some light on (my) interior darkness and (my lack of) heroism.
Throughout most of my life I have found very little to be of 'lasting value and worth', consequently I've always been very uninterested and unmotivated compared to other people. Even now, I don't watch television or film (or movies), I don't 'entertain', drink or smoke, have a hobby, garden, collect anything, or even have any 'friends' most people might consider worthy of the name. In college, my professors believed I was good at understanding the necessary shadings of difference that make a good student when I applied myself. But that was the problem, so very little struck me as of lasting significance, value or worth that I spent most of my time shunning education and even most forms of 'fun' in favor of searching for something 'better' and more fulfilling. If I managed decent grades on strength of good memory and sheer cleverness, I was never a very good student, and today, though I am not 'searching' as diligently as I once was or even for the same sorts of things, in some ways my 'persistent perpetual dissatisfaction' now finds even less to be of lasting significance or importance than ever before.
And such a maximizing 'search' has its price; as my wife often remarks, I don’t seem to enjoy life very much and worse, my abiding lack of interest in nearly everything has been often (mis)perceived as an evaluative and reductive dismissal, earning me something of a reputation for being arrogant. And to some extent, I think both assessments are correct. I've said before I think of myself as a differentialist, seeing difference and similarity everywhere, but I suspect it's precisely such constant analysis that leaves me with a somewhat dark attitude about living and enjoying the activities of life. By taking and enjoying so little of life at face value, I find much of life little of value.
~
In my defense, I do point out that I do enjoy reading and writing, that a good bit of my reading and writing is quite life affirming – but of course some of it is really a continuation of my 'negative differentialist search'. Differentiation inevitably has its shortcomings, but in the course of separating life affirming analysis from the more nihilistic that I discovered how such negativity is detrimental – even in a life affirming relationship.
I also enjoy my 'occupation' and truly feel being my wife's partner, homemaker and stay at home father is my 'avocation', my 'calling in life', so unsurprisingly there are a great many things about 'doing what I'm doing' that make me deeply happy and satisfied (whether I am good at them or not). But I've been trying (as possibly many uxorious men do) to use the 'powerotic' passion I have for my wife to get me motivated to do things I wouldn't otherwise have the motivation to do, but the 'bait and switch' tactic of trying to get my wife to demand that I do things I don't want to do (ostensibly so she'll be happy) violates some pretty basic realities of an honest, intimate love symbol negotiation.
And this is what I meant about true heroism: I may be happy now merely to be on the path I'm on and 'doing what I'm doing', but in order to have the most happiness I can have in life, I'm eventually going to need to do something about this darkness. But my darkness, my shadow self, can only ever be faced down and conquered by me. My wife will help me of course because she loves me, but she can't, powerotically or otherwise, do it for me. If I'm ever going to manage my own idea, hope and standard of 'standing tall', one less selfish, lazy, uncaring, unsympathetic, unmotivated and nihilistic, then I've got to be brave and be my own hero.
I have been talking about how motivation as a matter of value and worth, how desire and passion as a matter of 'individual will', are indicative of our common and individual humanity at some essential and meaningful level so that I may ultimately shed some light on (my) interior darkness and (my lack of) heroism.
Throughout most of my life I have found very little to be of 'lasting value and worth', consequently I've always been very uninterested and unmotivated compared to other people. Even now, I don't watch television or film (or movies), I don't 'entertain', drink or smoke, have a hobby, garden, collect anything, or even have any 'friends' most people might consider worthy of the name. In college, my professors believed I was good at understanding the necessary shadings of difference that make a good student when I applied myself. But that was the problem, so very little struck me as of lasting significance, value or worth that I spent most of my time shunning education and even most forms of 'fun' in favor of searching for something 'better' and more fulfilling. If I managed decent grades on strength of good memory and sheer cleverness, I was never a very good student, and today, though I am not 'searching' as diligently as I once was or even for the same sorts of things, in some ways my 'persistent perpetual dissatisfaction' now finds even less to be of lasting significance or importance than ever before.
And such a maximizing 'search' has its price; as my wife often remarks, I don’t seem to enjoy life very much and worse, my abiding lack of interest in nearly everything has been often (mis)perceived as an evaluative and reductive dismissal, earning me something of a reputation for being arrogant. And to some extent, I think both assessments are correct. I've said before I think of myself as a differentialist, seeing difference and similarity everywhere, but I suspect it's precisely such constant analysis that leaves me with a somewhat dark attitude about living and enjoying the activities of life. By taking and enjoying so little of life at face value, I find much of life little of value.
~
In my defense, I do point out that I do enjoy reading and writing, that a good bit of my reading and writing is quite life affirming – but of course some of it is really a continuation of my 'negative differentialist search'. Differentiation inevitably has its shortcomings, but in the course of separating life affirming analysis from the more nihilistic that I discovered how such negativity is detrimental – even in a life affirming relationship.
I also enjoy my 'occupation' and truly feel being my wife's partner, homemaker and stay at home father is my 'avocation', my 'calling in life', so unsurprisingly there are a great many things about 'doing what I'm doing' that make me deeply happy and satisfied (whether I am good at them or not). But I've been trying (as possibly many uxorious men do) to use the 'powerotic' passion I have for my wife to get me motivated to do things I wouldn't otherwise have the motivation to do, but the 'bait and switch' tactic of trying to get my wife to demand that I do things I don't want to do (ostensibly so she'll be happy) violates some pretty basic realities of an honest, intimate love symbol negotiation.
And this is what I meant about true heroism: I may be happy now merely to be on the path I'm on and 'doing what I'm doing', but in order to have the most happiness I can have in life, I'm eventually going to need to do something about this darkness. But my darkness, my shadow self, can only ever be faced down and conquered by me. My wife will help me of course because she loves me, but she can't, powerotically or otherwise, do it for me. If I'm ever going to manage my own idea, hope and standard of 'standing tall', one less selfish, lazy, uncaring, unsympathetic, unmotivated and nihilistic, then I've got to be brave and be my own hero.
March 14, 2010
The Meaning of Meaning - Part 1
Assessment: When I first saw a possible connection between the numinous relationship experience and the human experience of meaning itself, I quite thought I mightn't have much more to say about (female led) relationships at all any more. I was (happily) wrong; see especially here, here, here, here and here. In my last segment about the nature of the human experience of meaning I think I either burned myself out or finally managed a functionally accurate (enough) theoretical framework with adequate explanatory power (for a while anyway). However, although in this analysis of the 'biological meaning matrix' I've hinted at how to do this, I haven't yet adequately connected the human interior experience of meaning (and passion) to the numinous (female led) relationship experience.
Theory: The experience of numinousity is similar to 'flow' and 'play' in that it results from action or passion (nearly) completely 'filling up' the 'space' within a given (no matter how they are 'derived' or 'created') set of rules, borders or limitations.
Yet the experience of numinousity is unlike 'flow' and 'play' in that it's meaning has an aspect of 'revelation' or 'epiphany', akin to a 'short circuit' of consciousness, that (I think possibly) results from a large scale 'fitted-ness', like (a large number of) puzzle pieces (all at once), of symbol/experience with one's interior mental framework.
The numinous intimate (female led) relationship experience is thus particularly interesting because the dynamic (I think) is one's partner becomes (to a large degree) the set of rules, borders or limitations (through empathy and sublimation) that one (nearly) 'fills up'. The result I think of as a 'relationship synapsis': the perceived intimate 'lining up' of two people's interior spaces and an intimate sense of 'fitted-ness' that also has qualities of 'playful flow'.
This is an emotional 'rim experience' on the mental space spectrum but since it happens (is at least perceived as happening) on both one's emotional interior and interactively on one's exterior, this lands on arc C or D (depending on how compact or differentiated one's mental framework is) and arc A.
And, to answer another question I had, I do think meaning is both an emergent property of mental frameworks and used as if functionally accurate for the objectively 'real'; thus meaning is (or at least can be) simultaneously concurrent to experience and retrospective.
Theory: The experience of numinousity is similar to 'flow' and 'play' in that it results from action or passion (nearly) completely 'filling up' the 'space' within a given (no matter how they are 'derived' or 'created') set of rules, borders or limitations.
Yet the experience of numinousity is unlike 'flow' and 'play' in that it's meaning has an aspect of 'revelation' or 'epiphany', akin to a 'short circuit' of consciousness, that (I think possibly) results from a large scale 'fitted-ness', like (a large number of) puzzle pieces (all at once), of symbol/experience with one's interior mental framework.
The numinous intimate (female led) relationship experience is thus particularly interesting because the dynamic (I think) is one's partner becomes (to a large degree) the set of rules, borders or limitations (through empathy and sublimation) that one (nearly) 'fills up'. The result I think of as a 'relationship synapsis': the perceived intimate 'lining up' of two people's interior spaces and an intimate sense of 'fitted-ness' that also has qualities of 'playful flow'.
This is an emotional 'rim experience' on the mental space spectrum but since it happens (is at least perceived as happening) on both one's emotional interior and interactively on one's exterior, this lands on arc C or D (depending on how compact or differentiated one's mental framework is) and arc A.
And, to answer another question I had, I do think meaning is both an emergent property of mental frameworks and used as if functionally accurate for the objectively 'real'; thus meaning is (or at least can be) simultaneously concurrent to experience and retrospective.
March 12, 2010
Need
The word 'need' must be the one of the greatest sources of confusion to accurate and adequate relationship communication simply because most people only ever infer (implicitly, contextually) what the goal a thing is needful for, or what might happen if what is needed doesn't happen. Try inserting the phrase "in order to _____" or the phrase "or _____ will happen" - or better yet, insert both. For a frustrating but educating bit of perspective, instead of "I need _____" try using this formula every time:
When it comes to love, our interior spaces and our emotions in general, you'll find not only you and your partner but most people only have the vaguest ideas of what to put in those first and last blanks, yet they are the blanks that make what one 'needs' meaningful.
"In order to _____, I need _____ or _____ will happen."
When it comes to love, our interior spaces and our emotions in general, you'll find not only you and your partner but most people only have the vaguest ideas of what to put in those first and last blanks, yet they are the blanks that make what one 'needs' meaningful.
Reciprocity of Love Widgets
We need to give. Yet we also give to get, get what we need, love in symbols we understand, and so we do what we can: compromise, give and take, consciously and unconsciously do things in certain ways simply for our partner’s satisfaction. And such things are not solely widgets bartered. Because we do them out of our love and for our partner’s sake, those widgets become love widgets, more than mere motions on a stage or lines we speak, they become the currency of our relationship, the currency of our love, they become love symbols and we become a person who loves by those symbols.
~Octopus Heart
There may some truth (operative word here is 'some') to the common assessment that men are uxorious because they have learned (perhaps from a very young age) to find comfort and security in lavishing attention and ceding control, and women are dominant because they have learned (perhaps from a very young age) to find comfort and security in controlling and manipulating their environment to their advantage.
Admittedly both these suggestions are more than a little reductionistic, yet I think they accurately reflect the tension between the success of finding the comfort and security every human wants and desires and the potentially unhealthy ways in which, and the potentially unhealthy lengths to which, we will go to successfully get that comfort and security.
Moreover, if everyone wants love in symbols they can understand, and if these are the symbols a person understands, then in the feedback need and love symbol negotiation I think it is only right and fitting that we not only want to give our partner what they want (because we love them) but that they get some comfort and security in whatever way they understand.
But should one actively trade? Relationship bargaining, like sex bargaining, bothers me.
I give my wife the help fit for her and her happiness because I love her and want her to be happy. Yet I also do this for my sake - so that I am happy and complete, because being her 'help mate' is what completes me. I do not help her hoping she will someday do anything specific for me in return; in this way my love and help to her is 'somewhat unconditional'. Because on the other hand, I do expect that she will choose to do things that adequately express her love for me, where, when and how she desires, and I expect to receive expressions of love from her - although still I don't think even this is (even an unconscious) condition for the love and help I give. Thus that she would try to force herself to trade or exchange love widgets out of duty or obligation bothers me - because I do not wish her to feel ... beholden. I value her freedom, and the subsequent happiness from her freedom, too much.
March 11, 2010
Relationship Reality and Role Playing
Some additional thoughts to Feedback Need and Meaning Part 1:
On 'role playing': Part of the problem is we use the word play in too many different ways.
While 'playing at' some thing is not to 'be' that thing, a 'role played' is attempting to fulfill a set of expected behaviors (e.g. husband and wife). Moreover, the 'interactive play' of many people's 'roles played' (kids playing cops and robbers, or adults playing foreman and crew) require a certain 'codependent suspension of disbelief'.
Another thought on the reality of play: A (female led) relationship cannot be real without two people attempting to fulfill each other's expectations (no matter how varied the success), and the relationship becomes real once the two codependently suspend their disbelief in the roles.
On 'role playing': Part of the problem is we use the word play in too many different ways.
While 'playing at' some thing is not to 'be' that thing, a 'role played' is attempting to fulfill a set of expected behaviors (e.g. husband and wife). Moreover, the 'interactive play' of many people's 'roles played' (kids playing cops and robbers, or adults playing foreman and crew) require a certain 'codependent suspension of disbelief'.
Another thought on the reality of play: A (female led) relationship cannot be real without two people attempting to fulfill each other's expectations (no matter how varied the success), and the relationship becomes real once the two codependently suspend their disbelief in the roles.
Relationship Reciprocity
Way back when I first began showing my passion (also here, here and here) and sharing my erotic truth with my wife, one of the first things she wanted be clear about was while this was fine for me and the way I loved from my interior, it was just not the way she was on her interior. At the time I practically laughed saying expecting your partner to be the same as you in all things, or expecting reciprocity from your partner in all things was a short sighted way to love.
I think this is still true about love and reciprocity and I don't think I ever suspected then just how true it was. For instance, recently I realized part of the reason I have been constantly telling her just how important she is to me, how important our relationship is to me, is because since she doesn't find as much existential comfort from daily stresses in the security of her partner as I find existential comfort from the daily stresses in the security of my partner. I even keep trying to comfort her when she is stressed out about practical things by essentially telling her, "these things will work out, and you have me, so don't worry" - well, this just hasn't been effective, ever. Just as I see that she and I both value comfort in times of stress but seek to obtain it differently, so too should I see that while we both value our relationship greatly, the way in which we value our relationship (and express it) can be quite different.
People are the same and are different; they might think differently about the same things or similarly about different things, or understand the same things differently, find similar comfort in different things, value the same things in different ways or value different things in the same way. Difference alone isn't good or bad; it's just different.
I have talked about how sharing the similarity of two interior spaces is what intimacy is all about, yet while similarity of exteriors might more easily lead to the intimacy of shared interior spaces, I think moving on to the difficulty of sharing similar interior spaces after taking the time and (intentional) attention to get over past and around those exterior differences can result in stronger bonds of intimacy. I have also talked about how it is all right for me not to value my wife's process to happiness the same way she does. Indeed one might argue that valuing her path to happiness in my own unique way is precisely what makes me able to dedicate myself to her so avidly without losing my own sense of self. The differences and similarities of individuals in a relationship is what makes the love symbol negotiation so fascinating and the need for symbol feedback so clear: we give and we take in love, different things and similar things, and somehow, amazingly, the economy of love is yet not reducible to mere widgets bartered.
I think this is still true about love and reciprocity and I don't think I ever suspected then just how true it was. For instance, recently I realized part of the reason I have been constantly telling her just how important she is to me, how important our relationship is to me, is because since she doesn't find as much existential comfort from daily stresses in the security of her partner as I find existential comfort from the daily stresses in the security of my partner. I even keep trying to comfort her when she is stressed out about practical things by essentially telling her, "these things will work out, and you have me, so don't worry" - well, this just hasn't been effective, ever. Just as I see that she and I both value comfort in times of stress but seek to obtain it differently, so too should I see that while we both value our relationship greatly, the way in which we value our relationship (and express it) can be quite different.
People are the same and are different; they might think differently about the same things or similarly about different things, or understand the same things differently, find similar comfort in different things, value the same things in different ways or value different things in the same way. Difference alone isn't good or bad; it's just different.
I have talked about how sharing the similarity of two interior spaces is what intimacy is all about, yet while similarity of exteriors might more easily lead to the intimacy of shared interior spaces, I think moving on to the difficulty of sharing similar interior spaces after taking the time and (intentional) attention to get over past and around those exterior differences can result in stronger bonds of intimacy. I have also talked about how it is all right for me not to value my wife's process to happiness the same way she does. Indeed one might argue that valuing her path to happiness in my own unique way is precisely what makes me able to dedicate myself to her so avidly without losing my own sense of self. The differences and similarities of individuals in a relationship is what makes the love symbol negotiation so fascinating and the need for symbol feedback so clear: we give and we take in love, different things and similar things, and somehow, amazingly, the economy of love is yet not reducible to mere widgets bartered.
Being Better from the Inside
In Plato's Symposium, Phaedrus suggests love is great because it makes you want to be a better person; his idea doesn't fare well philosophically. Even today, common wisdom has it that you can't make your life or your self better for anyone else's sake besides your own self's sake; you have to (consistently) want to be better at whatever it is before any lasting permanent change will take hold. I think I agree with this and today I think I noticed the difference between her sake and self sake.
On one hand, I think it can sometimes be difficult to sort out whose wants are who's in a relationship, often enough they overlap. Many times the betterment and standard I want for myself but have a hard time implementing I do eventually accomplish because I know it is also her standard too and the betterment she wants for me as well.
Of course on the other hand, there are those occasions when I am trying to accomplish something almost entirely for her sake; I might think this something is a good idea of itself or fine for other people, it's just not something I would choose for myself. And unsurprisingly these are the occasions I suffer from a serious lack of motivation; I'll procrastinate, and rush the process at the last minute, quite naturally doing a qualitatively shoddy job of it. And of course this inevitably comes back to haunt me (see love symbol negotiation).
However, today I felt and noticed a difference; I started a project for her earlier than the utmost procrastination might have allowed me and I did a decent job of it. I think the difference was I that wasn't doing it solely for her sake. Oh, I was using her qualitative standards for the project (mostly), but my motivation was that I really wanted to be better at being a house husband; her house husband of course, but more as a matter of incident. This is a job I really like and I just really wanted to be better it.
The 'job' description happens to include some qualitative standards set by my beloved wife, and indeed, I rather still think most of the point behind my house husband 'job' (role expectations) is to help her to her happiness (falls under the rubric of life lesson two, see also love's interior meaning for importance of motivation for life lesson two). But within this new (female led) motivation (on my interior) in wanting to be a better partner for her (better 'fit' like glove) is a practical daily life application that I didn't have, or even see, before. (See here for female led motivation she understands.)
When do my best to help her to happiness, I realized it was perfectly all right if she weren't happy in the final outcome - because while she sets many of the standards and the outcome of her happiness is the goal of the process, helping her as much as I am able to help is my goal, and if I only do this, I can be happy with me.
On one hand, I think it can sometimes be difficult to sort out whose wants are who's in a relationship, often enough they overlap. Many times the betterment and standard I want for myself but have a hard time implementing I do eventually accomplish because I know it is also her standard too and the betterment she wants for me as well.
Of course on the other hand, there are those occasions when I am trying to accomplish something almost entirely for her sake; I might think this something is a good idea of itself or fine for other people, it's just not something I would choose for myself. And unsurprisingly these are the occasions I suffer from a serious lack of motivation; I'll procrastinate, and rush the process at the last minute, quite naturally doing a qualitatively shoddy job of it. And of course this inevitably comes back to haunt me (see love symbol negotiation).
However, today I felt and noticed a difference; I started a project for her earlier than the utmost procrastination might have allowed me and I did a decent job of it. I think the difference was I that wasn't doing it solely for her sake. Oh, I was using her qualitative standards for the project (mostly), but my motivation was that I really wanted to be better at being a house husband; her house husband of course, but more as a matter of incident. This is a job I really like and I just really wanted to be better it.
The 'job' description happens to include some qualitative standards set by my beloved wife, and indeed, I rather still think most of the point behind my house husband 'job' (role expectations) is to help her to her happiness (falls under the rubric of life lesson two, see also love's interior meaning for importance of motivation for life lesson two). But within this new (female led) motivation (on my interior) in wanting to be a better partner for her (better 'fit' like glove) is a practical daily life application that I didn't have, or even see, before. (See here for female led motivation she understands.)
When do my best to help her to happiness, I realized it was perfectly all right if she weren't happy in the final outcome - because while she sets many of the standards and the outcome of her happiness is the goal of the process, helping her as much as I am able to help is my goal, and if I only do this, I can be happy with me.
The (Female Led) Relationship Balance
I think an essential problem for uxorious men is the tension involved in trying to interactively balance the pursuit of his (emotional) needs with putting her (emotional) needs first (see life lesson three), without the 'lie' of 'topping from the bottom'.
On one hand, we all know there is a fine line between 'helping my wife understand her options' and 'trying to get her to do what I want', a.k.a. the dread 'topping from the bottom'. Yet on the other hand, there is one very important reason (if not exactly a 'good' reason) why a man tops from the bottom: he's trying to get something he believes he needs.
Indeed the simple definition of 'topping from the bottom' (speaking to other uxorious men) is presenting your own wants/desires/needs as the best way and help for her to get what she wants and needs. It's trying to convince her she can best get hers by giving you yours, although at heart TFB is a kind of lie, because it's a (selfish) anti-intimate misrepresentation of one's motives (possibly intentionally, but not always) instead of a loving and intimate direct attempt at communicating one's perceived needs and desires.
However, (and this is key) everyone, even uxorious men have emotional needs (see life lesson one); my wife has valid emotional needs, and I have valid emotional needs. And there are some valid (positive, intimate, helpful) ways to pursue those needs in a (female led) relationship and there are not so valid (negative, anti-intimate, unhelpful) ways of pursuing those needs in a (female led) relationship. I think it is a good idea to say, 'I have a need' to your partner (and vice versa), although I admit it can be extremely difficult for any person to say, and the fear of rejection has a real basis in their partner's (hard or soft) limits.
Talking it through, communicating (talking and listening) however, also allows us to see things from the other perspective. Because I think an essential problem for dominant women is that there is some serious tension involved in trying to interactively balance the pursuit of her own (emotional) needs with ensuring he gets his (emotional) needs met too, without the 'lie' of 'topping from the bottom' ...
On one hand, we all know there is a fine line between 'helping my wife understand her options' and 'trying to get her to do what I want', a.k.a. the dread 'topping from the bottom'. Yet on the other hand, there is one very important reason (if not exactly a 'good' reason) why a man tops from the bottom: he's trying to get something he believes he needs.
Indeed the simple definition of 'topping from the bottom' (speaking to other uxorious men) is presenting your own wants/desires/needs as the best way and help for her to get what she wants and needs. It's trying to convince her she can best get hers by giving you yours, although at heart TFB is a kind of lie, because it's a (selfish) anti-intimate misrepresentation of one's motives (possibly intentionally, but not always) instead of a loving and intimate direct attempt at communicating one's perceived needs and desires.
However, (and this is key) everyone, even uxorious men have emotional needs (see life lesson one); my wife has valid emotional needs, and I have valid emotional needs. And there are some valid (positive, intimate, helpful) ways to pursue those needs in a (female led) relationship and there are not so valid (negative, anti-intimate, unhelpful) ways of pursuing those needs in a (female led) relationship. I think it is a good idea to say, 'I have a need' to your partner (and vice versa), although I admit it can be extremely difficult for any person to say, and the fear of rejection has a real basis in their partner's (hard or soft) limits.
Talking it through, communicating (talking and listening) however, also allows us to see things from the other perspective. Because I think an essential problem for dominant women is that there is some serious tension involved in trying to interactively balance the pursuit of her own (emotional) needs with ensuring he gets his (emotional) needs met too, without the 'lie' of 'topping from the bottom' ...
Female Led Motivation She Understands
Apropos of an empathetic (female led) progression, when it comes to life lesson two and 'doing what she wants / what she tells me', I am reminded that uxorious men are often compared to children in the female led 'obedience' dynamic (see my story 'Glint' for example). Yet one thing my wife does not want (along with having "an employee for a partner"), nor would find fulfilling, is to have the (added) responsibility (in life) of a full grown child for a relationship partner.
While I have gone on about my experiential compaction of erotic truth with numinous experience with fate and destiny (cf. life lesson), the way in which my wife best (symbolically) understands my desire and motivation to do what she wants, asks and tells me to do, is that I want her to not feel any extra weight of duty and obligation, from me or anywhere. I just want her to be happy - and to this end I am willing, have already decided, to do what she wants – so that she can be happy. This motivation says love to her; this motivation is a love symbol she can understand.
While I have gone on about my experiential compaction of erotic truth with numinous experience with fate and destiny (cf. life lesson), the way in which my wife best (symbolically) understands my desire and motivation to do what she wants, asks and tells me to do, is that I want her to not feel any extra weight of duty and obligation, from me or anywhere. I just want her to be happy - and to this end I am willing, have already decided, to do what she wants – so that she can be happy. This motivation says love to her; this motivation is a love symbol she can understand.
Meaning Part 3: The Mental Space Spectrum
What a piece of work is man… in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! ~Shakespeare
In order to get a better handle on 'Flow' and 'Fitted-ness' from Meaning Part 2, I began thinking of them as a spectrum and ended up with an intersection of three different spectra, an intersection that I think has the greatest explanatory power over the 'experience of meaning' than anything else I've come up with to date. Simply put: I think the closer one's mental space is to the rim of the circle, the more intensely meaningful the experience is. I also think everything on the rim could be felt, expressed or interpreted as a 'numinous experience'. However, while the numinous relationship experience, for example, I think would be somewhere on arc C (on my interior), there are clearly aspects of the experience that are interactive and closer to arc A.
A few points:
Moreover, when an experience 'becomes' unconscious it loses experiential meaning (e.g. trained reflex arc, unconscious [ideological] ignorance of opposing points of view), yet when an experience 'emerges' from unconsciousness, symbols of the experience often pinpoint the experience's originating agency as outside 'beyond' the self, such as luck, God, fate, etc. Upon rare occasions, when experiences emerge from the unconscious right at the circle's rim, the sudden intense meaning of the 'rim experience' is akin to a short circuit of consciousness, and the experience is likely at its most luminously meaningful point. Symbols of such intense 'rim experiences' are often more akin to divine revelation.
I don't think the key to (optimal life) happiness is merely the maintenance of a (perfect) balanced center point in the spectrum (I think that's boredom), but I do think (optimal life) happiness might be a matter of discovering what kind of moments are better (for any individual person) spent at which place in the spectrum, and not spending an inordinate amount of (overall or successive) time at any place within the mental space spectrum. This is what I mean when I say I think one of my life lessons is seeking my individual ('right') balance between the intense (meaningful) flow of the relationship experience and the intense (meaningful) fitted-ness of reflection.
Indeed, as I noted before, conscious awareness of our experiences can change our success by affecting our focus (Meaning Part 1), yet conscious reflective awareness might be integral to long term project happiness. Thus conscious awareness needs to be balanced so it does not detract from our active focus but achieves adequate (optimal) 'mental reflective happiness'. Fortunately, awareness (no matter its affect on focus) does not change the meaning and significance of the experience, or change the sensation of integrated human adequacy and purpose from 'playing'. We still can 'get lost' in the experience of the game after pausing to reflect on the experience, still seek to experience that meaningful sensation of 'playful' 'flow', indeed seeking the flow and rhythm of our own internal cadences may be a requisite part of what makes the experience meaningful.
In order to get a better handle on 'Flow' and 'Fitted-ness' from Meaning Part 2, I began thinking of them as a spectrum and ended up with an intersection of three different spectra, an intersection that I think has the greatest explanatory power over the 'experience of meaning' than anything else I've come up with to date. Simply put: I think the closer one's mental space is to the rim of the circle, the more intensely meaningful the experience is. I also think everything on the rim could be felt, expressed or interpreted as a 'numinous experience'. However, while the numinous relationship experience, for example, I think would be somewhere on arc C (on my interior), there are clearly aspects of the experience that are interactive and closer to arc A.
A few points:
- Area A has the most 'flow' from the most physical of sporting activities.
- Area B has the most 'flow' from the most technical activities (i.e. highly skilled factory workers, I also think chess playing might be here).
- Area C has the most 'flow' from symbol expressive arts (painting, music, etc.) but I think many 'spiritual experiences' might commonly be located on the diagram here.
- Area D has the most 'flow' from interior (philosophic) analysis. (My mind hangs out here a lot.)
- 'Symbol fitted-ness' originates as expression of the interior (area C or D), an expression adequate one's own interior (area C or D) or to one's exterior (area A or B)
- The more consciously aware one is of their experience (the further into the upper diagram 'dome') the less intensely meaningful the experience. (I think; see below.)
- The center of the intersection is probably the most boring place.
- I do not think there is a 'proper' orientation of this diagram; I only placed unconsciousness on the bottom because, I happen to not be an explorer of the unconscious.
Moreover, when an experience 'becomes' unconscious it loses experiential meaning (e.g. trained reflex arc, unconscious [ideological] ignorance of opposing points of view), yet when an experience 'emerges' from unconsciousness, symbols of the experience often pinpoint the experience's originating agency as outside 'beyond' the self, such as luck, God, fate, etc. Upon rare occasions, when experiences emerge from the unconscious right at the circle's rim, the sudden intense meaning of the 'rim experience' is akin to a short circuit of consciousness, and the experience is likely at its most luminously meaningful point. Symbols of such intense 'rim experiences' are often more akin to divine revelation.
I don't think the key to (optimal life) happiness is merely the maintenance of a (perfect) balanced center point in the spectrum (I think that's boredom), but I do think (optimal life) happiness might be a matter of discovering what kind of moments are better (for any individual person) spent at which place in the spectrum, and not spending an inordinate amount of (overall or successive) time at any place within the mental space spectrum. This is what I mean when I say I think one of my life lessons is seeking my individual ('right') balance between the intense (meaningful) flow of the relationship experience and the intense (meaningful) fitted-ness of reflection.
Indeed, as I noted before, conscious awareness of our experiences can change our success by affecting our focus (Meaning Part 1), yet conscious reflective awareness might be integral to long term project happiness. Thus conscious awareness needs to be balanced so it does not detract from our active focus but achieves adequate (optimal) 'mental reflective happiness'. Fortunately, awareness (no matter its affect on focus) does not change the meaning and significance of the experience, or change the sensation of integrated human adequacy and purpose from 'playing'. We still can 'get lost' in the experience of the game after pausing to reflect on the experience, still seek to experience that meaningful sensation of 'playful' 'flow', indeed seeking the flow and rhythm of our own internal cadences may be a requisite part of what makes the experience meaningful.
Life Lesson Three: Relationship Peace and Harmony
The love symbol negotiation in a (female led) relationship is so important; the course of learning life lesson three, balancing the preeminence of my (reflective, mental) interior space and the numinous (uxorious) relationship experience, is an emotional process where (emotional) toes can get stepped on. I am reminded of a quote about Middle East peace, that there are no new ideas about the process, just new combinations and timing, because being at peace, at heart and center, is ultimately about dealing with emotions, your own first and foremost, but also integratedly and dynamically with the emotions of another person.
Meaning Part 2: 'Flow' and 'Fitted-ness'
In retrospect this question of awareness, experience and meaning (part 1) has been exceptionally difficult to parse and navigate. It was my intention to associate the experiential happiness of 'flow' and 'play' with the happiness of the numinous (relationship) experience, however there is a larger gap between these than I initially thought.
The 'problem' (mostly) is that I still (mostly) view meaning as arising from the 'fitted-ness' of any particular experience (thought, symbol, etc.) to one's interior mental framework. On one hand, I think this 'meaning as fitted-ness' theory somewhat relegates meaning to an epiphenomenal side-effect in much the same way some people treat (rather scientistically) consciousness as (merely) an emergent property of biological complexity. I do not think I am being scientistic to think this way about meaning, because I am sticking to what I experience rather than what I believe about my experience. Indeed, the benefit I have by thinking of meaning this way (as emergent of framework 'fitted-ness') is that it has more explanatory power for my personal experience: things have (great) meaning, to me, when they fit (really well) what I already understand.
Yet on the other hand, the fact is I take the meaning I garner from how an experience (though, symbol, etc.) fits into my mental framework and what I already understand and I believe it and function as if it is meaningful for more than just me - that is I function as if those things are meaningful of themselves and (at least potentially) meaningful to everyone, not simply meaningful to me, as if it were (ojectively) real.
Although it is possible (likely even) both could be true to some extent, without understanding the mechanism of meaning I don't think I can have it both ways: either (all) meaning is an emergent property of mental frameworks (a sort of translation of our experiences, etc.), or (all) meaning is innate, indigenous and germane to the object associated.
Regardless (and back to my awareness of happiness problem), this 'fitted-ness theory of meaning' means that meaning is retrospective, and any happiness derived from the 'fitted-ness' of meaning (I think) is therefore also retrospective and not based on 'flow' and 'play', which are experientially based rather than retrospective. I do think we need both things, mind you, experiential and retrospective, but the mechanism of their functional integration still eludes me.
The 'problem' (mostly) is that I still (mostly) view meaning as arising from the 'fitted-ness' of any particular experience (thought, symbol, etc.) to one's interior mental framework. On one hand, I think this 'meaning as fitted-ness' theory somewhat relegates meaning to an epiphenomenal side-effect in much the same way some people treat (rather scientistically) consciousness as (merely) an emergent property of biological complexity. I do not think I am being scientistic to think this way about meaning, because I am sticking to what I experience rather than what I believe about my experience. Indeed, the benefit I have by thinking of meaning this way (as emergent of framework 'fitted-ness') is that it has more explanatory power for my personal experience: things have (great) meaning, to me, when they fit (really well) what I already understand.
Yet on the other hand, the fact is I take the meaning I garner from how an experience (though, symbol, etc.) fits into my mental framework and what I already understand and I believe it and function as if it is meaningful for more than just me - that is I function as if those things are meaningful of themselves and (at least potentially) meaningful to everyone, not simply meaningful to me, as if it were (ojectively) real.
Although it is possible (likely even) both could be true to some extent, without understanding the mechanism of meaning I don't think I can have it both ways: either (all) meaning is an emergent property of mental frameworks (a sort of translation of our experiences, etc.), or (all) meaning is innate, indigenous and germane to the object associated.
Regardless (and back to my awareness of happiness problem), this 'fitted-ness theory of meaning' means that meaning is retrospective, and any happiness derived from the 'fitted-ness' of meaning (I think) is therefore also retrospective and not based on 'flow' and 'play', which are experientially based rather than retrospective. I do think we need both things, mind you, experiential and retrospective, but the mechanism of their functional integration still eludes me.
March 3, 2010
The (Female Led) Garden Hose
Like a garden hose (flr dynamic) with a nozzle (woman's control) under water pressure (man's passion), it is true there is tension - the force of water (man's passion) pushes against, and is constrained by, the hose (e.g. the rules she makes). Yet there is also amazing harmony, at the nozzle point, where one might think all the 'really cool action' happens, but just as there can be variations in the woman's control (nozzle), so too can there be variations in the man's passion (water pressure). And while clearly the tightest metaphoric nozzle control and the highest metaphoric water pressure have some desirable experiences, I think other possible combinations can meaningfully illustrate more accurately some real life relationship interactions (e.g. when the hose 'springs a leak' ).
I personally think I experience this harmony, this 'playful flow', as something spiritual, something numinous and powerful. I have to resort to ideas of divinity, of fate and destiny, to the idea of soul mates and souls mating, to adequately express it.
I personally think I experience this harmony, this 'playful flow', as something spiritual, something numinous and powerful. I have to resort to ideas of divinity, of fate and destiny, to the idea of soul mates and souls mating, to adequately express it.
Meaning Part 1: Play, Flow, Focus and Awareness
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players… ~Shakespeare
Not that you won or lost – but how you played the Game. ~Grantland Rice
Life's a game. ~Common saying
I've already discussed how no one likes to feel as if they are playing a role in a relationship, but if life's a game in which we play for the high stakes of meaning and significance, then we're all playing a kind of 'role' already. It might then be more accurate to say we just don't like conscious awareness of playing a role in a relationship, because taking two roles on at once easily results in tension, stress, anxiety, conflicts of interest and other assorted dissonance. And if our 'primary role' is about life meaning and purpose, while the 'relationship role' is about relationship meaning and purpose, surely our primary role will have precedence as a matter of course, but the harmony of these two creates a happiness unparalleled in the game of life.
As a metaphor, as a symbol for incorporated conscious experience, the idea of life being a game reminds me of the ancient Greek concept of happiness as eudaimonia, 'living well' or 'being equal to the task', of Friedrich Schiller's idea of 'play' and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of 'flow', but with the added variables of meaning, focus and awareness of experience.
'Flow', that moment of 'optimal experience', is probably most recognizable as a moment of complete focus on doing something; athletes experience it in sports, but so do chess players, artists, martial artists and musicians. Flow is being wholly 'in the moment', 'being on the ball', 'in the zone', 'in the groove', and 'keeping your head in the game'. It's the moment when the task is so complex, takes so much skill and is so challenging, that not only can the relative importance of 'winning' or 'losing' be forgotten, because it is irrelevant towards getting the task done, but also the awareness of the task being 'just a game' can be forgotten.
In a very real sense 'flow' is the experiential awareness equivalent of the 'suspension of disbelief' in storytelling. And raising the curtain of awareness on our interior focus can be ruinous for the task, because the task is so demanding even the least bit of focus it takes to say "I'm doing, I'm doing it!" distracts us, and suddenly we are not doing it.
Yet as readers, athletes, artists, and as humans frankly, we seek out this mode of consciousness intentionally because we know it's the one that can get done what 'needs' to get done within the 'given rules' of the task. And this is what reminds me of Schiller's concept of play, a bridge between the 'formal drive' and the 'sensual drive', between human need for limitations, definitions, rules, forms and regulations on one hand, and on the other hand the humanity's boundless creative energy, imagination, spirit and soul. Children at play understand the need for rules, but they also will easily ignore the rules when they get in the way of their creativity, their imagination, and the 'flow' experience of 'fun'. However if 'play' is a 'perfect balance' of form and spirit that results in the intensely focused, time and awareness losing, happy and 'playful' 'flow' of existence, it is extremely difficult to stay in this moment very long.
The ancient Greeks (and some eastern philosophies), however, maintained more conscious awareness; the Greek eudaimonia; 'living well' was living all of their life (not just a task or game, a few moments, here and there) in a manner equal to their individual humanity. Eudaimonia is being 'all that you can be' at whatever it is that you are, with all the virtue you possess. Thus not just those few moments of flow are required to 'live well', but the athlete (for example) must both in and out of the game and at all times strives to be the best athlete he can be, with all the goodness of humanity the athlete possesses.
The positive effect of a good game off the field has been well noted, but in addition I think one needs a certain amount of mental reflective space to appreciate an experience's meaning and significance. For instance, in longer term games and projects we may have shorter bursts of flow but not continuously, yet in a long term task it is precisely these reflective moments when we assess how we are doing that we feel retrospectively 'equal to the task' and feel happiest. In a long term project perfect 'flow happiness' is harder to achieve because the task has more variables to consider and reflect upon in order to evaluate how well one is doing. Thus creating a balanced awareness of how well we are doing is important, an awareness that does not detract from our focus but achieves adequate 'mental reflective happiness'.
Not that you won or lost – but how you played the Game. ~Grantland Rice
Life's a game. ~Common saying
I've already discussed how no one likes to feel as if they are playing a role in a relationship, but if life's a game in which we play for the high stakes of meaning and significance, then we're all playing a kind of 'role' already. It might then be more accurate to say we just don't like conscious awareness of playing a role in a relationship, because taking two roles on at once easily results in tension, stress, anxiety, conflicts of interest and other assorted dissonance. And if our 'primary role' is about life meaning and purpose, while the 'relationship role' is about relationship meaning and purpose, surely our primary role will have precedence as a matter of course, but the harmony of these two creates a happiness unparalleled in the game of life.
As a metaphor, as a symbol for incorporated conscious experience, the idea of life being a game reminds me of the ancient Greek concept of happiness as eudaimonia, 'living well' or 'being equal to the task', of Friedrich Schiller's idea of 'play' and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of 'flow', but with the added variables of meaning, focus and awareness of experience.
'Flow', that moment of 'optimal experience', is probably most recognizable as a moment of complete focus on doing something; athletes experience it in sports, but so do chess players, artists, martial artists and musicians. Flow is being wholly 'in the moment', 'being on the ball', 'in the zone', 'in the groove', and 'keeping your head in the game'. It's the moment when the task is so complex, takes so much skill and is so challenging, that not only can the relative importance of 'winning' or 'losing' be forgotten, because it is irrelevant towards getting the task done, but also the awareness of the task being 'just a game' can be forgotten.
In a very real sense 'flow' is the experiential awareness equivalent of the 'suspension of disbelief' in storytelling. And raising the curtain of awareness on our interior focus can be ruinous for the task, because the task is so demanding even the least bit of focus it takes to say "I'm doing, I'm doing it!" distracts us, and suddenly we are not doing it.
Yet as readers, athletes, artists, and as humans frankly, we seek out this mode of consciousness intentionally because we know it's the one that can get done what 'needs' to get done within the 'given rules' of the task. And this is what reminds me of Schiller's concept of play, a bridge between the 'formal drive' and the 'sensual drive', between human need for limitations, definitions, rules, forms and regulations on one hand, and on the other hand the humanity's boundless creative energy, imagination, spirit and soul. Children at play understand the need for rules, but they also will easily ignore the rules when they get in the way of their creativity, their imagination, and the 'flow' experience of 'fun'. However if 'play' is a 'perfect balance' of form and spirit that results in the intensely focused, time and awareness losing, happy and 'playful' 'flow' of existence, it is extremely difficult to stay in this moment very long.
The ancient Greeks (and some eastern philosophies), however, maintained more conscious awareness; the Greek eudaimonia; 'living well' was living all of their life (not just a task or game, a few moments, here and there) in a manner equal to their individual humanity. Eudaimonia is being 'all that you can be' at whatever it is that you are, with all the virtue you possess. Thus not just those few moments of flow are required to 'live well', but the athlete (for example) must both in and out of the game and at all times strives to be the best athlete he can be, with all the goodness of humanity the athlete possesses.
The positive effect of a good game off the field has been well noted, but in addition I think one needs a certain amount of mental reflective space to appreciate an experience's meaning and significance. For instance, in longer term games and projects we may have shorter bursts of flow but not continuously, yet in a long term task it is precisely these reflective moments when we assess how we are doing that we feel retrospectively 'equal to the task' and feel happiest. In a long term project perfect 'flow happiness' is harder to achieve because the task has more variables to consider and reflect upon in order to evaluate how well one is doing. Thus creating a balanced awareness of how well we are doing is important, an awareness that does not detract from our focus but achieves adequate 'mental reflective happiness'.
February 26, 2010
A (Female Led) Progression: Empathy and Sublimation
Occasionally I reread one or two of my past entries and in recently doing so I realized I had three separate and slightly different ideas about the progression of my interior in the choice to pursue a female led relationship. The curious thing about these ideas is that they developed separately (retrospectively) over the two years after deciding in favor of a female led relationship, each idea being the product of a separate and distinct line of thinking, but the essential commonalities of their progression is fascinating: empathy and sublimation.
I have been, am still somewhat am, concerned about this 'sublimation point' in all its manifestations wherever I come across it, that it may not successfully continue to endure the transfer of emotion into meaningful, accurate and adequate, (relationship love) symbols. However, it seems (as part of the functioning of our biologic meaning matrix) entirely reasonable to suppose when such sublimations break down, we naturally search for and find other expressions. I might, moreover, apparently and fortunately take comfort that "psychoanalysts often refer to sublimation as the only truly successful defense mechanism".
The three ideas in original context follow.
~
One idea I was developing was because I was ill at ease with my uxorious nature I was attempting to gain her approval of me by giving her control over the uxorious interaction in our relationship. A (somewhat revised) quote:
Another line of thinking (and the only one I'd put a finishing polish on) dealt more with prioritizing her freedoms and passions over my freedoms and passions in order to optimize our happiness:
A third line of thinking dealing with empathy and the numinous relationship experience was incomplete at the time I realized the parallel structure of these ideas:
Empathy:
- Of her desire, passion (physical and otherwise), what she wants
- Of her feeling free, her freedom, her choices, her available options
- Of her (felt) ability to control her present and future
- Of her sense of duty (physical relationship and otherwise), the weight of responsibility and obligation (the [moral] hampering of her freedom, choices and options)
- Of how the weight of duty, obligation, etc. above hampers her active happiness, pleasure, joy, contentment, etc.
Sublimation:
- In valuing her freedom (and etc.) over my freedom (and etc.),
- I experience her approval as my own success (?) and
- I experience her happiness as my own happiness (?) and
- in the successful result (or even pursuit) of her passion and desire (in happiness) I find accomplishment of purpose and
- (vicarious though engendering experience may be) I experience this fulfillment of purpose as numinous (having existential meaning and significance) as any such fulfillment of purpose might be
I have been, am still somewhat am, concerned about this 'sublimation point' in all its manifestations wherever I come across it, that it may not successfully continue to endure the transfer of emotion into meaningful, accurate and adequate, (relationship love) symbols. However, it seems (as part of the functioning of our biologic meaning matrix) entirely reasonable to suppose when such sublimations break down, we naturally search for and find other expressions. I might, moreover, apparently and fortunately take comfort that "psychoanalysts often refer to sublimation as the only truly successful defense mechanism".
The three ideas in original context follow.
~
One idea I was developing was because I was ill at ease with my uxorious nature I was attempting to gain her approval of me by giving her control over the uxorious interaction in our relationship. A (somewhat revised) quote:
I gain her approval of my sexual feelings, urges, desires etc, which I might find otherwise unacceptable or at least uncomfortable, and I thus gain her validation.
By placing her desire before mine as a matter of priority and as a positive template (to follow), and so long as I comply (whether compliance is tacit or overt, whether under her direction and expectation or not) with it (or her), I get permission (even approval) to feel comfortable and accepted (i.e. to be physically intimate, act out my desire) with her. Thus by giving up authority over my own pleasure and gratification, I get and gain her approval of my desire and self. By giving up control (over physical intimacy), by giving up the authority of 'acceptability' to her, and by complying with her (tacit or overt) standards, I get to have 'approved' interactions - with her.
Regarding life choices, it is also the same: by giving up control over my life, I gain her approval of my otherwise 'poor choices in' life, and gain her approval of me.
Another line of thinking (and the only one I'd put a finishing polish on) dealt more with prioritizing her freedoms and passions over my freedoms and passions in order to optimize our happiness:
I want her to be actively happy chasing her desire and passions, since if she were actively happy we would then be happy together because I know I am happy just to participate in the process of pursuing her happiness together.
I often saw my wife valuing individual freedom (hers or mine) over relationship concession or compromise, and valuing the individual pursuit of desire and passion (hers or mine) more than any compromised joint pursuit of desire and passion. While I myself continued (in general) to value passion and desire over individual freedom (or perhaps to value passion and desire as the primary reason for valuing freedom), I think I eventually learned to generally value and prioritize her freedom and desire over my freedom and desire in most things, to sublimate some gratification of my individual desire to the gratification of her desire.
I wonder if neither of us want her to ‘lead me’ so much as to simply not have her individual freedom impinged upon by having our lives lived together, by having our desires living together, our passions alive together.
A third line of thinking dealing with empathy and the numinous relationship experience was incomplete at the time I realized the parallel structure of these ideas:
- Sensing (empathetically and through direct conversations) some guilt and dissatisfaction with physical intimacy in general
- leads me to attuning to her passion (away from guilt) and eventually to the
- vicarious experience of her (physical) passion and
- experiencing resultant fitting of purpose with prize as 'meaning' with a numinous quality attached to 'serving' and helping her passions and life lessons
- giving entire relationship numinous sense of service 'meant-ness', of fate and destiny.
February 25, 2010
Differences in (Female Led) Relationships (Again)
I have previously discussed there seem to be two (or more) different kinds of female led relationships (here: 1, 2, 3, and also here) and a recent email pointed me (back) to Jean Hantman's (rather extrapolated) opinion on the subject. She discusses three types of relationships in terms of the woman's internal motivations and offers the following shorthand (scroll down three-fourths of the page):
At first glance one might think (as indeed I did at first) she believes women who dominate their men are always in the worst relationship; however, when she says "The worst relationships involve submission out of balance" I think the key qualifying phrase is "out of balance". Hantman characterizes this 'out of control' (my words) submissive relationship as (1) bitter [whether there's much actual 'fighting' or not], (2) having a woman who sacrifices love for the sake of control, and 3) having a man who adores his wife in public but detests and resents her in private.
I do think there are some relationships out there like this, where the man is unhappily acting submissive to his wife, and save for the unhappy part it seems to me quite close to a platform for the '(kinky) sex and control bargained' female led relationship. On one level and for some men it's surely an easy bargain if a rather nontraditional sexuality: he gets the constant (perhaps kinky, perhaps not) sexual attention he craves but quits resisting her bids for control (a resisting he may not have been all so successful at anyway), while she gets the control she craves but must constantly manage and maintain his sex drive, and keep him passion addicted.
But for a man who is not a genuinely submissive man this seems far too much a serious sacrifice to make in order to obtain the sexual symbols he craves, and so ultimately, as Hantman suggests, the relationship would be unsustainable. On the other hand if the man in this kind of relationship is genuinely submissive, it seems quite possible he might at least be 'happy enough' with a more dominant and controlling wife. Such a couple might even progress from Hantman's quiet, nearly unspoken (or passive aggressive) fighting where control is might often be tacitly ceded, to an openly bargaining female led relationship.
And on a still yet another hand, I think a naturally uxorious man fortunate enough to fall in with a woman both loving and dominant will have a relationship with some exterior features similar to the 'worst relationship', but on the interior be more similar to Hantman's 'easiest relationship' category (unfortunately this page is currently 'under construction'; it wasn't always) where the woman is adored and respected in the relationship. While in this case she might clearly lead the relationship as well I think this relationship is less likely to function on any 'openly bargained' paradigm.
After all this is said however, I still honestly believe there are an infinite variety of relationship love symbols, female led or not, and while there are always differing levels of accurate and adequate love symbols in any relationship, having different love symbols (kinky ones, female led ones, or whatever) isn’t wrong. And while having significantly different love symbols in a relationship can cause serious (possibly terminal) relationship compatibility problems, I remain certain where these problems exist, in whatever degree they exist, all couples must work out love symbols that work for them until they have enough symbols that work well enough for them.
Honestly, Hantman's ideas make me wonder how many times people presently in female led relationships have been married (and divorced) – and what their characterizations are of their past and present relationships.
(On a different note, many uxorious men wonder why their partners wouldn't want a man to serve their every whim, desire and fantasy; I think Hantman might simply suggest some women are motivated by different things, e.g. 'fairness and equality'.)
-The driving force for women in the worst relationship is CONTROL.
-The driving force for women in the hardest relationship is FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY.
-The driving force for women in the easiest relationship is to be both ADORED AND RESPECTED.
At first glance one might think (as indeed I did at first) she believes women who dominate their men are always in the worst relationship; however, when she says "The worst relationships involve submission out of balance" I think the key qualifying phrase is "out of balance". Hantman characterizes this 'out of control' (my words) submissive relationship as (1) bitter [whether there's much actual 'fighting' or not], (2) having a woman who sacrifices love for the sake of control, and 3) having a man who adores his wife in public but detests and resents her in private.
I do think there are some relationships out there like this, where the man is unhappily acting submissive to his wife, and save for the unhappy part it seems to me quite close to a platform for the '(kinky) sex and control bargained' female led relationship. On one level and for some men it's surely an easy bargain if a rather nontraditional sexuality: he gets the constant (perhaps kinky, perhaps not) sexual attention he craves but quits resisting her bids for control (a resisting he may not have been all so successful at anyway), while she gets the control she craves but must constantly manage and maintain his sex drive, and keep him passion addicted.
But for a man who is not a genuinely submissive man this seems far too much a serious sacrifice to make in order to obtain the sexual symbols he craves, and so ultimately, as Hantman suggests, the relationship would be unsustainable. On the other hand if the man in this kind of relationship is genuinely submissive, it seems quite possible he might at least be 'happy enough' with a more dominant and controlling wife. Such a couple might even progress from Hantman's quiet, nearly unspoken (or passive aggressive) fighting where control is might often be tacitly ceded, to an openly bargaining female led relationship.
And on a still yet another hand, I think a naturally uxorious man fortunate enough to fall in with a woman both loving and dominant will have a relationship with some exterior features similar to the 'worst relationship', but on the interior be more similar to Hantman's 'easiest relationship' category (unfortunately this page is currently 'under construction'; it wasn't always) where the woman is adored and respected in the relationship. While in this case she might clearly lead the relationship as well I think this relationship is less likely to function on any 'openly bargained' paradigm.
After all this is said however, I still honestly believe there are an infinite variety of relationship love symbols, female led or not, and while there are always differing levels of accurate and adequate love symbols in any relationship, having different love symbols (kinky ones, female led ones, or whatever) isn’t wrong. And while having significantly different love symbols in a relationship can cause serious (possibly terminal) relationship compatibility problems, I remain certain where these problems exist, in whatever degree they exist, all couples must work out love symbols that work for them until they have enough symbols that work well enough for them.
Honestly, Hantman's ideas make me wonder how many times people presently in female led relationships have been married (and divorced) – and what their characterizations are of their past and present relationships.
(On a different note, many uxorious men wonder why their partners wouldn't want a man to serve their every whim, desire and fantasy; I think Hantman might simply suggest some women are motivated by different things, e.g. 'fairness and equality'.)
February 24, 2010
Judging the (Past) Content of My Character
I have a dream that my four little children will one day … be judged by … the content of their character. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.
I have been thinking about regrets (again and again) and how I am fortunate to have so few now, largely because I am happy (enough) and do not want to change my present; but I did recently realize my regrets fall into two, sometimes overlapping, categories.
First I sometimes wish to have known 'then' what I know now, although this is usually because I want to have cleared the obstacles to what I have now more quickly and thereby have more of what I have now and to have been happier longer. This is not seeking to change the course of my history in any respect, it is seeking to be wiser and thereby have had a 'straighter' path. However these regrets do not bother me very much anymore because I believe I needed to make the mistakes I have made in order to value what I value today, finding worth in the things I find worth in today, be the person I am today who is (finally) happy with who he is. It may be true that we do not need to make mistakes in order to learn every little thing, but when it comes to life lessons, I feel certain there are some inevitable mistakes, some things we must learn by experience.
So it is that the regret (it is just one thing for me) still bothering me is when I feel I did not have the (moral) courage to have done something differently than I did before. While this category can be viewed as simply not 'knowing' something, i.e. the (moral) strength, or not having experientially learned something, i.e. the (moral) courage, and so making a mistake, I think this regret is different because it is not so much a regret of 'something done as the result of a choice' as it is a regret of 'a choice as the result of personal character'. Feeling guilty about what once was the content of one's character I think is slightly different than feeling guilty about a choice one once made - although they can obviously overlap.
I have been thinking about regrets (again and again) and how I am fortunate to have so few now, largely because I am happy (enough) and do not want to change my present; but I did recently realize my regrets fall into two, sometimes overlapping, categories.
First I sometimes wish to have known 'then' what I know now, although this is usually because I want to have cleared the obstacles to what I have now more quickly and thereby have more of what I have now and to have been happier longer. This is not seeking to change the course of my history in any respect, it is seeking to be wiser and thereby have had a 'straighter' path. However these regrets do not bother me very much anymore because I believe I needed to make the mistakes I have made in order to value what I value today, finding worth in the things I find worth in today, be the person I am today who is (finally) happy with who he is. It may be true that we do not need to make mistakes in order to learn every little thing, but when it comes to life lessons, I feel certain there are some inevitable mistakes, some things we must learn by experience.
So it is that the regret (it is just one thing for me) still bothering me is when I feel I did not have the (moral) courage to have done something differently than I did before. While this category can be viewed as simply not 'knowing' something, i.e. the (moral) strength, or not having experientially learned something, i.e. the (moral) courage, and so making a mistake, I think this regret is different because it is not so much a regret of 'something done as the result of a choice' as it is a regret of 'a choice as the result of personal character'. Feeling guilty about what once was the content of one's character I think is slightly different than feeling guilty about a choice one once made - although they can obviously overlap.
February 23, 2010
The Edge of Understanding
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. ~ 'Yoggi' Berra
Part of the problem with the life lesson intersection is that it 'exists' on the edge of my experiential understanding; I don’t only have the problem of 'experiential compaction', because I also have the problems of 'differential blinders' and 'symbol stagnation'.
The place where thinking about things meets up with doing things is where we (in our common human experience) begin evaluating our experiences by the meaning(s) we gain from them. This process of valuing and discovering worth by insight, intuition and (or) reflection becomes a sort of mental modus operandi, a 'mental framework' that frames our understanding of the world and ourselves.
In life lesson two I referenced how I experience 'differential blinders', when I'm 'missing the forest for the trees' (and possibly also not having my priorities straight) because I am so absorbed in differentiating some minor (meaningless) point. And sometime ago pointed out how I have, in my mental framework, a differentiation predilection; I tend to differentiate needlessly beyond what I meaningfully experience. I think of this 'extra differentiation', and the symbols it creates, as 'experientially meaningless' because it does not have any engendering experience attached to it by which I might value it (evaluate it) and see its worth; I usually end up with concepts, ideas and theorizations that are literally '(experientially) worthless symbols'. Thus it is I rather think I need to develop some sort of bright-line warning system by which I might recognize when I am essentially not only (meaninglessly) wasting my time and mental resources but doing so at the expense (being blinded) of other meaningful experiences.
In 'symbol stagnation' we tend to seek symbols more than the meaning they are supposed to represent, or when we mistake a symbol for its meaning (they aren't the same thing). Those symbols might be love symbols, dominance and submission symbols, religious symbols, national symbols, philosophy symbols, cultural symbols, even language symbols, as no one likes hearing even unintentionally 'hollow words', but eventually I think we find the symbol mysteriously conveys less and less meaning. And when this happens, like passion addicts, we will either try using more of the same misaligned symbol to get more meaning, or we'll try rehabilitating the symbol by reattaching it to the engendering experience (perhaps in the same way as before or perhaps differently).
And of course when at the compacted edge of understanding, finding that 'differential bright-line' and stepping into 'symbol rehab' are just that much more difficult.
Part of the problem with the life lesson intersection is that it 'exists' on the edge of my experiential understanding; I don’t only have the problem of 'experiential compaction', because I also have the problems of 'differential blinders' and 'symbol stagnation'.
The place where thinking about things meets up with doing things is where we (in our common human experience) begin evaluating our experiences by the meaning(s) we gain from them. This process of valuing and discovering worth by insight, intuition and (or) reflection becomes a sort of mental modus operandi, a 'mental framework' that frames our understanding of the world and ourselves.
In life lesson two I referenced how I experience 'differential blinders', when I'm 'missing the forest for the trees' (and possibly also not having my priorities straight) because I am so absorbed in differentiating some minor (meaningless) point. And sometime ago pointed out how I have, in my mental framework, a differentiation predilection; I tend to differentiate needlessly beyond what I meaningfully experience. I think of this 'extra differentiation', and the symbols it creates, as 'experientially meaningless' because it does not have any engendering experience attached to it by which I might value it (evaluate it) and see its worth; I usually end up with concepts, ideas and theorizations that are literally '(experientially) worthless symbols'. Thus it is I rather think I need to develop some sort of bright-line warning system by which I might recognize when I am essentially not only (meaninglessly) wasting my time and mental resources but doing so at the expense (being blinded) of other meaningful experiences.
In 'symbol stagnation' we tend to seek symbols more than the meaning they are supposed to represent, or when we mistake a symbol for its meaning (they aren't the same thing). Those symbols might be love symbols, dominance and submission symbols, religious symbols, national symbols, philosophy symbols, cultural symbols, even language symbols, as no one likes hearing even unintentionally 'hollow words', but eventually I think we find the symbol mysteriously conveys less and less meaning. And when this happens, like passion addicts, we will either try using more of the same misaligned symbol to get more meaning, or we'll try rehabilitating the symbol by reattaching it to the engendering experience (perhaps in the same way as before or perhaps differently).
And of course when at the compacted edge of understanding, finding that 'differential bright-line' and stepping into 'symbol rehab' are just that much more difficult.
Framing My Mental Me
I think and write a lot about mental frameworks, sometimes as if they are not a part of a person, sometimes as if they are a part of a person. On one hand, we do not always make entirely volitional choices about how we view and think about ourselves and the world so one's mental framework seems not very different from one's self; it is just part of who we are. On the other hand, there is some dynamic and volitional interplay that suggests some separation of our selves from our frameworks.
Right now I rather think one's mental framework is merely a mind's modus operandi, the way in which people interact with and think about the world and themselves. As a method and manner of doing things, it thus seems to me one's mental framework is as much a part of that person, and equally as separate and changeable, as anything else they do.
Right now I rather think one's mental framework is merely a mind's modus operandi, the way in which people interact with and think about the world and themselves. As a method and manner of doing things, it thus seems to me one's mental framework is as much a part of that person, and equally as separate and changeable, as anything else they do.
Navigating the Life Lesson Intersection
I have three (main) reasons why the life lesson intersection is difficult for me to navigate.
1) I often want to help my wife with symbols from my own interior, but these are so often symbols she doesn’t understand, and sometimes so unhelpful they create obstacles for her instead.
2) I sometimes get so focused on the train of my interior thoughts (what I think, feel, believe and opine), so excited about what is happening between my ears, that I do not pay adequate attention to my beloved and what's happening to her and between us ("It's like I have no husband at all!"). on the other hand, this imbalance happens in the other direction as well when I get wonderfully attuned to my wife and what is happening between us, but feel as if I am missing the meaningful interior expression and the interior reflection I need to do in order learn the lessons I need to learn. This intersection requires not only attention to my interior, to my wife and to our relationship, but also to the balance and harmony of these.
3) The place where my interior pattern of meaning and our relationship meaning overlap is not well defined or differentiated (see here and here), and in the compaction of the experience I tend to get my symbols crossed:
1) I often want to help my wife with symbols from my own interior, but these are so often symbols she doesn’t understand, and sometimes so unhelpful they create obstacles for her instead.
2) I sometimes get so focused on the train of my interior thoughts (what I think, feel, believe and opine), so excited about what is happening between my ears, that I do not pay adequate attention to my beloved and what's happening to her and between us ("It's like I have no husband at all!"). on the other hand, this imbalance happens in the other direction as well when I get wonderfully attuned to my wife and what is happening between us, but feel as if I am missing the meaningful interior expression and the interior reflection I need to do in order learn the lessons I need to learn. This intersection requires not only attention to my interior, to my wife and to our relationship, but also to the balance and harmony of these.
3) The place where my interior pattern of meaning and our relationship meaning overlap is not well defined or differentiated (see here and here), and in the compaction of the experience I tend to get my symbols crossed:
-the emotions of love and romance,
-the tumult of sexuality,
-the meaning and significance of interacting with her,
-the spiritually numinous,
-the intellectual awareness of my experience,
All these things get compacted together in the experience, often in different combinations at different times, in this intersection.
February 21, 2010
Life Lessons
The very concept of a life lesson I think is based on a person's pattern of numinous experience and where they consistently find meaning and significance. I already have some things I consider life lessons, but in addition it recently occured to me there's a life lesson for me in learning to balance my interior space (i.e. my consistent interior valuation of interior mental space and philosophic pursuits over material and biologic progress) with helping her with her life lessons.
Life Lesson 1
I have worth,
I have value;
what I think
what I feel
what I believe
and my opinion
--even if no one knows them--
matter.
Life Lesson 2
I learn by loving,
I learn by doing,
and by doing all I can
to help her learn
her life lessons,
by doing what she wants
what she tells me,
I learn more of my life lessons.
Life Lesson 3
Balancing life lessons 1 and 2.
Life Lesson 1
I have worth,
I have value;
what I think
what I feel
what I believe
and my opinion
--even if no one knows them--
matter.
Life Lesson 2
I learn by loving,
I learn by doing,
and by doing all I can
to help her learn
her life lessons,
by doing what she wants
what she tells me,
I learn more of my life lessons.
Life Lesson 3
Balancing life lessons 1 and 2.
February 18, 2010
Cheating at Meaning III: Always Between
As far as meaning goes here on earth, we only have what we have, nothing more, which I don’t like because there's nothing more I can 'get' (i.e. 'get' as in 'to understand' but more fearfully 'to possess'), and nothing less, which implies a simple responsibility to sincerely try understanding what I may about my limited humanity.
Because every one lives here in limitation, between our human biology and our numinous experience, between our bodies and our minds we live between past and future, in the space between our experience and the symbols of our experience. We are neither the experience nor the symbol(s) of our experience, and no matter how much meaning I may obtain by it, I am neither my numinous relationship experience nor the symbols I use to describe it to myself.
At its most basic level a symbol is simply a tool for mental apprehension, and because symbols and symbolism are apprehended in a person's consciousness, a symbol can be anything. But symbols, helpful and functional as they are, are not who we are, are not as 'real' as we are.
This is why no matter what I do to mentally investigate my experience, if I am intellectually honest, I can never capture the experiential 'essence' of my experience in symbol(s), even in symbol representation to myself. Experience, as experience itself, is and will always be a bit of the 'beyond' we get to have while in between.
Because every one lives here in limitation, between our human biology and our numinous experience, between our bodies and our minds we live between past and future, in the space between our experience and the symbols of our experience. We are neither the experience nor the symbol(s) of our experience, and no matter how much meaning I may obtain by it, I am neither my numinous relationship experience nor the symbols I use to describe it to myself.
At its most basic level a symbol is simply a tool for mental apprehension, and because symbols and symbolism are apprehended in a person's consciousness, a symbol can be anything. But symbols, helpful and functional as they are, are not who we are, are not as 'real' as we are.
This is why no matter what I do to mentally investigate my experience, if I am intellectually honest, I can never capture the experiential 'essence' of my experience in symbol(s), even in symbol representation to myself. Experience, as experience itself, is and will always be a bit of the 'beyond' we get to have while in between.
Cheating at Meaning II
On the other hand, part of what has always irritated me (until recently) about 'people' is their lack of desire to pierce the veil* as it were, to push past the ignorance imposed on our consciousness, by our engrossment in either holding pattern amusement or basic biology survival and reproduction. I have always craved (serious, deep) meaning from the time I was twelve.
Twelve: I remember I was at school, looking out the window, thinking about how many people there were in all those blank looking houses, how many houses there were all over the neighborhood, the county, the state, the world, how many different things those people were doing, and how very much the same they all were; quite naturally I wondered what it all meant, where was the meaning, and what meaning might I have when I grew up.
Story: Perhaps this is why we like stories and storytelling so much, they amuse us (i.e. waste time in holding patterns) and bind us together (i.e. better bonds to survive by). They not only convey meaning, but do it on a myriad of levels: cultural, sociological, moral, religious – birth, life, family, victory, defeat, shame, pride, death, there's just no end to the meanings we can wrap into, tap into, a good story (or even a poor one). Anything this useful to our biological meaning matrix would never be discarded by evolution (if evolution had a will with which to discard) or by any ruling divinity.
I fear if I had the opportunity to attain such deep down meaning I would skirt the very borders of right and wrong in the attempt. This 'flexibility' is why I wonder and worry about my motives in investigating the numinous relationship experience.
~~
* I think (I could be wrong) the phrase "pierce the veil" is a reference to the Jewish temple holy seat, the literal place where God was believed to reside – again, the numinous and meaning.
Twelve: I remember I was at school, looking out the window, thinking about how many people there were in all those blank looking houses, how many houses there were all over the neighborhood, the county, the state, the world, how many different things those people were doing, and how very much the same they all were; quite naturally I wondered what it all meant, where was the meaning, and what meaning might I have when I grew up.
Story: Perhaps this is why we like stories and storytelling so much, they amuse us (i.e. waste time in holding patterns) and bind us together (i.e. better bonds to survive by). They not only convey meaning, but do it on a myriad of levels: cultural, sociological, moral, religious – birth, life, family, victory, defeat, shame, pride, death, there's just no end to the meanings we can wrap into, tap into, a good story (or even a poor one). Anything this useful to our biological meaning matrix would never be discarded by evolution (if evolution had a will with which to discard) or by any ruling divinity.
I fear if I had the opportunity to attain such deep down meaning I would skirt the very borders of right and wrong in the attempt. This 'flexibility' is why I wonder and worry about my motives in investigating the numinous relationship experience.
~~
* I think (I could be wrong) the phrase "pierce the veil" is a reference to the Jewish temple holy seat, the literal place where God was believed to reside – again, the numinous and meaning.
February 16, 2010
Perhaps the Origin Doesn't Make the Species
I stopped caring very much about human origins years ago but couldn't explain to people (who obviously did care) exactly why I didn't care anymore, but now I think I can explain. It seems to me many people are preoccupied with the meaning and significance of 'how' we got to have the human experiences we have, and the idea that the origin of humanity might somehow help explain the purpose of humanity is perfectly understandable. So whether it was evolution, or a divinity (or divinities), or aliens, or some other process or some combination of processes, 'what separates us from the (other) animals' is usually part of a body of evidence either supporting or detracting from one or another of these theories.
Yes, it makes sense; except I don't think I really associate my human origin with my human purpose so much. The fact is (right now) our human origin is not a knowable thing (with any degree of acceptable certainty [to me]) while the facts of my experience are knowable things, and I feel very confident in the interactive nature of my physical body with my consciousness.
So if our 'human' consciousness, or what ever it is that separates us from (other) animal species, is an emergent phenomena from the sheer complexity of biology, genetics and evolution (as the scientist in this video seems to suggest), then that's all well and good (I'll honestly be an automatic fan of anything that 'makes me human'), but now I have these meaningful numinous (spiritual, religious) experiences that seem far more significant than the purpose (or lack of purpose) my evolutionary origin can satisfy.
While evolutionary theory can explain 'how' we came to have (some) experiences of meaning we have, it can't meaningfully explain 'why' as in purpose (unless the answer is 'no reason' - which [with apologies to Existentialism] is not meaningful ) without resorting to some sort of scientism. Unfortunately scientistic, evolutionary-biologic explanations of my experiences simply do not reference enough important pieces of my puzzle interior to have satisfactory explanatory power over the human biological meaning matrix.
What I recently realized is that the most meaningful piece for my interior purpose (and motivation) isn't what separates 'humans' (or human experience) from anything else (period), but rather what has the most explanatory power over what I experience as a human, over what I already have on my (human) interior framework. And one thing I already have there are some powerful experiences of meaning and significance that have now become a part of the order of my (human) existence.
On the other hand I am not arguing for 'divinely given purpose' for humanity either, for if I owe my origin to a divinity (or divinities) who claim a purpose for me then I have some faith the divinity would want my experiences (including experiences of and through my biology) to reveal the good purpose(s) the divinity has for me. And while I have been religious in the past, I haven't quite arrived at a divinely inspired personal purpose for my (human) life yet.
Thus, despite all the posible causal permutations and variations of human origination, it seems to me my experience always has primacy over my origin - at least as far as meaning is concerned.
Yes, it makes sense; except I don't think I really associate my human origin with my human purpose so much. The fact is (right now) our human origin is not a knowable thing (with any degree of acceptable certainty [to me]) while the facts of my experience are knowable things, and I feel very confident in the interactive nature of my physical body with my consciousness.
So if our 'human' consciousness, or what ever it is that separates us from (other) animal species, is an emergent phenomena from the sheer complexity of biology, genetics and evolution (as the scientist in this video seems to suggest), then that's all well and good (I'll honestly be an automatic fan of anything that 'makes me human'), but now I have these meaningful numinous (spiritual, religious) experiences that seem far more significant than the purpose (or lack of purpose) my evolutionary origin can satisfy.
While evolutionary theory can explain 'how' we came to have (some) experiences of meaning we have, it can't meaningfully explain 'why' as in purpose (unless the answer is 'no reason' - which [with apologies to Existentialism] is not meaningful ) without resorting to some sort of scientism. Unfortunately scientistic, evolutionary-biologic explanations of my experiences simply do not reference enough important pieces of my puzzle interior to have satisfactory explanatory power over the human biological meaning matrix.
What I recently realized is that the most meaningful piece for my interior purpose (and motivation) isn't what separates 'humans' (or human experience) from anything else (period), but rather what has the most explanatory power over what I experience as a human, over what I already have on my (human) interior framework. And one thing I already have there are some powerful experiences of meaning and significance that have now become a part of the order of my (human) existence.
On the other hand I am not arguing for 'divinely given purpose' for humanity either, for if I owe my origin to a divinity (or divinities) who claim a purpose for me then I have some faith the divinity would want my experiences (including experiences of and through my biology) to reveal the good purpose(s) the divinity has for me. And while I have been religious in the past, I haven't quite arrived at a divinely inspired personal purpose for my (human) life yet.
Thus, despite all the posible causal permutations and variations of human origination, it seems to me my experience always has primacy over my origin - at least as far as meaning is concerned.
Gendered Frameworks
My wife and I recently had a 'disagreement' and we had the following imagined conversation afterward to explain our points of view.
For the record I do not believe men and women are from different planets, or even simply communicate as if they are from different planets. I might accept men and women may occasionally demonstrate sociologically statistically significant (if only slightly so) different motivations that could be accounted for by evolutionary theory - but who cares, because we are ninety-nine percent more alike in our common humanity than we are different (i.e. neither sex or gender are aliens to the other, see also the human biological meaning matrix for some real basic elemental and meaningful gender sameness).
Thus, I rather see the difference here as one of frameworks, one framework being more compact (hers) where often differences (facts) are seen but ignored because they not experientially meaningful (see worth), the other framework being more differentiated (mine) where often not very meaningful non-experienced differences are observed, catalogued and filed away for future problem solving reference. And naturally people can only listen to the symbols they understand, so she wouldn't 'hear' the 'help' I was giving her, and I wouldn't 'hear' her request for 'support'. (Actually seeing frameworks in action like this, or inaction as the case may be, is so fascinating.)
I also think this is why educating people, of any gender (race, age, creed, etc.), against their will is never very efficacious; people need a certain amount of experiential meaning to 'relate', and that certain amount will vary person to person as their frameworks differ. Every framework has strengths and weaknesses, even blind spots, but this seems as if it is something all frameworks have in common.
She: This sweater is itchy.
Me: You can take it off if you want but I don't think it's the sweater because the material is designed to not be itchy.
She: It's not very helpful when you just disagree with me.
Me: But it is helpful to contribute salient and relevant facts.
She: Except that people generally don't want help solving things; they can solve things on their own and if they need help with that they usually ask specifically for some kind of 'solving help'. What they really want normally is supportive help.
Me: Supportive help? With a sweater? I can understand Supportive help with the death of a loved one, but with an itchy sweater?
She: Yes, even with little things like with itchy sweaters.
Me: But that's the most obnoxious and crazy thing I've ever heard, look if--
She: (Looks meaningfully at me.)
Me: Yes, Dear.
For the record I do not believe men and women are from different planets, or even simply communicate as if they are from different planets. I might accept men and women may occasionally demonstrate sociologically statistically significant (if only slightly so) different motivations that could be accounted for by evolutionary theory - but who cares, because we are ninety-nine percent more alike in our common humanity than we are different (i.e. neither sex or gender are aliens to the other, see also the human biological meaning matrix for some real basic elemental and meaningful gender sameness).
Thus, I rather see the difference here as one of frameworks, one framework being more compact (hers) where often differences (facts) are seen but ignored because they not experientially meaningful (see worth), the other framework being more differentiated (mine) where often not very meaningful non-experienced differences are observed, catalogued and filed away for future problem solving reference. And naturally people can only listen to the symbols they understand, so she wouldn't 'hear' the 'help' I was giving her, and I wouldn't 'hear' her request for 'support'. (Actually seeing frameworks in action like this, or inaction as the case may be, is so fascinating.)
I also think this is why educating people, of any gender (race, age, creed, etc.), against their will is never very efficacious; people need a certain amount of experiential meaning to 'relate', and that certain amount will vary person to person as their frameworks differ. Every framework has strengths and weaknesses, even blind spots, but this seems as if it is something all frameworks have in common.
February 15, 2010
Cheating at Meaning
I read something recently which made me wonder at my own motivations for investigating what I have named the numinous relationship experience. I do believe in my relationship with my wife I am experiencing something as meaningful and numinous, but it is a very valid question to ask if am I trying to force more 'divine experience' by my investigation, if I am attempting to gain more meaning by cheating, cheating on some experiential aspect that is necessary and required for obtaining worth (e.g. spiritual knowledge, spiritual wisdom) while living here on earth.
If investigating the numinous relationship experience in order to qualitatively improve the relationship, improve its innate meaning and significance, is all well and good, I thus start looking for the line in the sand. I wonder at what point is the investigation is trying to 'beat' the meaning game, trying to cheat the biological meaning matrix (for instance taking drugs to 'enhance' the spiritual journey is not my thing), trying to take a shortcut across the material genetic 'code', across sociological terms and rules, even across the nature of human reality, to somehow - win 'illicit' meaning.
The concept of rising above past and beyond the human competition and strivance for meaning in life bespeaks an attempt to skip out on or skip over the bounds and limitations of my corporeal existence - I am wary of the idea of becoming a 'little enlightened god' (through my numinous relationship experience or otherwise) while here on earth.
I do not think I am attempting to force a divine experience; I think I am naming what I experience, i.e. that there is something 'divine' about this relationship experience. I do not claim I am enlightened by the experience; I don't even think I am (re)naming or (re)labeling the experience as 'divine' merely in order to feel more spiritually enlightened, that would be 'empty' meaning.
When I previously asked (also here) how many numinous nodes of human experience could there be, it wasn't because I am trying to catalogue their exact placement and nature in the hopes of revealing some secret hidden knowledge about the meaning of human existence (I honestly don't think there is any such secret hidden knowledge), i.e. cheating on living through the engendering experience aspect of the process of gaining meaning.
Yet I do wonder if I understand everything I can from what I have already experienced, so what I am trying to do is understand the nature of the process by which we experience meaning. Where meaning happens in our lives may indicate the condition under which it happens, the conditions then might more directly sought in order to receive (i.e. not force) as much meaning as would come an individual's way. I want to gain as much understanding as I can from what I do experience, and so I differentiate as much as I can by mentally interpreting and reflecting upon what I experience emotionally, volitionally and spiritually.
If investigating the numinous relationship experience in order to qualitatively improve the relationship, improve its innate meaning and significance, is all well and good, I thus start looking for the line in the sand. I wonder at what point is the investigation is trying to 'beat' the meaning game, trying to cheat the biological meaning matrix (for instance taking drugs to 'enhance' the spiritual journey is not my thing), trying to take a shortcut across the material genetic 'code', across sociological terms and rules, even across the nature of human reality, to somehow - win 'illicit' meaning.
The concept of rising above past and beyond the human competition and strivance for meaning in life bespeaks an attempt to skip out on or skip over the bounds and limitations of my corporeal existence - I am wary of the idea of becoming a 'little enlightened god' (through my numinous relationship experience or otherwise) while here on earth.
I do not think I am attempting to force a divine experience; I think I am naming what I experience, i.e. that there is something 'divine' about this relationship experience. I do not claim I am enlightened by the experience; I don't even think I am (re)naming or (re)labeling the experience as 'divine' merely in order to feel more spiritually enlightened, that would be 'empty' meaning.
When I previously asked (also here) how many numinous nodes of human experience could there be, it wasn't because I am trying to catalogue their exact placement and nature in the hopes of revealing some secret hidden knowledge about the meaning of human existence (I honestly don't think there is any such secret hidden knowledge), i.e. cheating on living through the engendering experience aspect of the process of gaining meaning.
Yet I do wonder if I understand everything I can from what I have already experienced, so what I am trying to do is understand the nature of the process by which we experience meaning. Where meaning happens in our lives may indicate the condition under which it happens, the conditions then might more directly sought in order to receive (i.e. not force) as much meaning as would come an individual's way. I want to gain as much understanding as I can from what I do experience, and so I differentiate as much as I can by mentally interpreting and reflecting upon what I experience emotionally, volitionally and spiritually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
